IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
December 23, 2010
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JOSEPH DAVID WEBB, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-072031-8
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margulies, J.
P. v. Webb CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Joseph Webb appeals from the revocation of his probation and subsequent commitment to state prison. Defendant's counsel has asked this court, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether it contains any arguable issues. Counsel has notified defendant he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.
An information filed December 26, 2007, charged defendant with lewd acts on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); count one), attempted lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a)/664; count two), and possession of a weapon on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count three). According to the probation report, defendant contacted two male students, ages six and seven, in the Rodeo Hills Elementary School multi-purpose room. During the first incident, the seven-year-old victim followed defendant to a nearby restroom where defendant showed him two throwing knives, while asking him if he wanted to be to be a ninja. He instructed the victim to pull down his pants, after which he pulled on the victim's penis. In the second incident, the six-year-old victim followed defendant into the same restroom, where defendant once again showed his knives to the victim and asked if he wanted to be a ninja. The victim stood quietly in the corner of the stall with his hands covering his eyes. A janitor observed defendant walking into the restroom with the second victim, confronted defendant, and the police were summoned.
On September 4, 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to all three counts. The trial court placed defendant on four years of probation with execution of a four-year eight-month sentence suspended. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of probation, defendant was ordered to participate in a one-year, nonresidential, sex offender treatment program through Shasta Treatment Associates. Defendant was further ordered to have no contact with any children with the exception of his younger siblings, but only in the presence of an adult.
A petition to revoke defendant's probation was filed on June 23, 2009, alleging defendant violated the terms and conditions of probation because he was terminated from the Shasta treatment program. Daniel Schenk, the program administrator, testified at the probation violation hearing that defendant was terminated from the program in June 2009 because he failed to make progress and violated treatment rules. According to Schenk, defendant violated the treatment program rules by viewing pornography, having sexual partners during treatment, and lying about his contacts with minors. Schenk also testified that defendant was a specific danger to children under the age of 18, due to his admissions of sexual interest in young, prepubescent males and his disclosure of fantasies of young males. He believed defendant demonstrated a lack empathy and understanding of his "deviance regarding young boys."
On January 22, 2010, the trial court revoked and terminated defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended sentence of four years eight months, with 905 days of custody credits.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and nothing in the record suggests counsel was ineffective or incompetent.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's revocation of probation. Clearly defendant was in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation because he was for good cause terminated from the sex offender treatment program.
There are no sentencing errors.
This court has reviewed the entire record and finds no arguable legal issues requiring further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.